“The legend of the Wandering Jew.” The Jew flees the cross and spends, this is no legend, all of time wandering, wondering, not daring to consider that he might have been wrong about the man called Yeshua.

On passivity, mood and free will in Christian regeneration: With a little help from Glen Miller and Little Richard.

In Walking backwards to the Cross: The Passivity and Suffering of the Passion of Christ, I examined the meaning of the “Passion of Christ.” The heart of the “Passion” lies in its historical (etymological) meaning. “Passion” comes from the Latin root passio “to render,” “submit” “be passive.” So, the ground of Jesus’ Passion was his submission to causes that deprived him of his freedom and well-being. Jesus’ passivity, however, was not the passivity of resignation: “Oh well, I’ll have to do what my Father commands me to do; come to earth, suffer and die for sinners.” Not at all. The Father’s will is also the Son’s will, is also the Holy Spirit’s will. It was the Tri-une God’s will that the Son should take on flesh to give his life to “a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages (Revelation 7:9).

“…though he was in the form of God, (he) did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6-8).

What was the main reason why the Apostle Paul wrote Philippians 2:6-8 above? The main reason lies in the preceding verse, Philippians 2:5): “ Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself …”

So, the Christian is admonished to diminish himself. To do so, he has give up some of his rights, he has to curtail his freedom, as Jesus did. In other words, every Christian must suffer (undergo) his own “passion” (submission).

We see that there is both an active and a passive element to the “passion” (submission).

“I am at the moment curious to know how do you act ‘passively’ in your being protestant/Calvinist, in your being part of your church?”

Back of that question lies, I suggest, the view that Calvinism teaches that we have no free will. That, of course, is not true, but no matter how much you try and explain to an Arminian (someone who maintains that we have to co-operate with God in our regeneration), they don’t get it. And I have tried in every which way in a clutch of essays so far – this one is my 17th – to disabuse the Arminian, but to no avail and much travail (Calvinism and Arminianism). The etymological meaning of essay is “try,” hence the French essayer “to try.” Try, try, try again.

Here is the Roman Catholic’s question again together with related question in her follow-up comment, followed by my reply:

Questions: “How do you act ‘passively’ in your being protestant/Calvinist, in your being part of your church? And “You have yet not answered my question about how you are in a ‘passive’ mood in your denomination.”

My reply:

Your oxymoronic question: how do you act (tee hee) ‘passively’ in your being protestant/Calvinist, in your being part of your church? And your further comment: You have yet not answered my question about how you are in a ‘passive’ mood in your denomination.

Our issue, of course, is not the grammatical mood because in both the active and the passive mood, the agent and recipient of the action is the same. In my example, it is Christ who is the active party in both the active mood and the passive mood: He gives the faith; I receive it.

The question is: is my will passive in the reception of this faith. Not at all. I actively accept the faith that Christ has gifted to me. But I can only will (move my heart) to accept once – as Christ says – Christ has made me free. So I was passive (indeed dead) before God regenerated me and then (logically, not chronologically) gave me faith (Ephesians 2:1-3), but once I was made alive, I accepted (received actively) with joy – as did the last sower in the parable of the sowers – the faith that God planted in my regenerated soul And that’s Calvinism AND the biblical view.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44. If you are drawn, you come; if you come, you WILL be raised on the last day.

Whether one is forcefully persuaded, as in Flew or “gives in” as in Lewis, they both, in Lewis’ words, were “given a free choice. I could open the door or keep it shut. I chose to open.”

Brothers Lewis and Lazarus have been dead and buried for four days, and stinketh by now. Jesus says “Lazarus and Lewis come forth!” Lazarus exercises his atrophied muscles, rolls off the slab, staggers erect and stumbles out the entrance of the opened tomb. Lewis exercises his free choice to rise from the dead, get off the slab and move to the closed door. But look, the door is already open. I could’ve done that myself, says Lewis, but thanks for the gracious help.

As Lewis didn’t believe in the inerrancy of scripture, it would have been hard for me to appeal to what Jesus says in John 6:44:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” Like a good Arminian, he believes that Jesus is knocking at the door of his will, and pleading: “Let me in, let me in, please, I beseech you.” I’m reminded of Little Richard’s “Keep a nockin’ but you can’t come in…come tomorrow night and try again.” One of the comments on that song was “Everything anyone ever needs toknow about rock and roll is in this song.” And everything that is wrong with Arminianism is in their interpretation of “I stand at the door and knock” (Revelation 3:20).

What does John 6:44 really mean? It means that God enables a sinner to come to him., which does not mean come as far as the moment of decision (shall I or shan’t I believe). No, “coming”means “believing,” And we need his grace to come to Him; that is indisputable.

Eureka; I’ve got an idea of how to get through to Muslims. Instead of talking of the “Passion of Christ,” let’s try “The Submission of Christ.” Actually that might not only open the door to Muslims it might also open the door to many a Christian’s understanding of the Passion of Christ – for the first time in his lethargic life.

2 thoughts on “On passivity, mood and free will in Christian regeneration: With a little help from Glen Miller and Little Richard.”

I had not read yet this entry but this is what I wrote on your older entry:
“A very important point. Just because Christ is passive in his Passion, this does not mean that he is helpless. Not at all; He is deeply involved. The deepest aspect of this involvement is his voluntary emptying of Himself (Philippians 2:5-10).”
Do you see the oxymoronic problem in what you reported? ( passive but involved)….
Anyway how are activily ‘passive’ in your faith has not be answered…what you said it is all theological refrasing of what has been said before…all the time the activity of interpretation etc….nothing that shows how you are practising your faith in a passive way…in other word how are you acting in a passive mood. In your entry you understood the importance of Jesus being ‘passive’ in his passion…how are you passive in your religious passion? The point is that you are never never passive in your protestant ways”
Mister Raph It is quite foreign for me the reason why you are contiously only speaking about will and not will even when I am being soooo pragmatic…Even without reading your new entry I knew what the problem was and is…no passivity in any possible way willingly or unwillingly in your religious mind frame..it is quite stressful…and less loving….Do your remember your old testament ways of loving that God taught us? Abandon..there is never abandon in your ways…never….interpretation interpretation above everything else…. the only protestant way…I am right you are wrong…I am wrong you are right…Ohhhh my God thank you for having a pope to decide all of it and let us prayyyyyy….the sacrifice demaned by God without the shading of the blood…and remember that for Catholics there is also with praying shedding of blood still…
Jesus sufferend from the beginning of time until the end of time…meaning that not anyone else could or would passively or not passively choosing or not choosing do this…every human suffering has an end on earth for how terrible it is…not the divine…Do you see how beautiful and just is the Catholic idea of divine sacrifice?

Do you mean by “abandon” something more than abandoning your old sinful ways and living as God requires in his word?

Your “the only protestant way…I am right you are wrong…I am wrong you are right…Ohhhh my God thank you for having a pope to decide all of it and let us prayyyyyy.”

Isn’t the pope’s way that he is right and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong? That seems to be the reason why you are thanking God that you don’t have to worry about what is right or wrong because God appointed the pope to do your thinking for you.

Your “the sacrifice demanded by God without the shedding of the blood…”

What do you mean.

Your “and remember that for Catholics there is also with praying shedding of blood still.”

Whose blood? And why must prayer be accompanied by the shedding of blood, unless in extreme cases like martyrdom?

Your “Jesus suffered from the beginning of time until the end of time…”

This means that Jesus is suffering continuously; “I thirst” (for souls) until the end of time. And you think this Roman Catholic idea is wonderful. Have I understood you?